[luke warm]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

In general, it is the slightly older players who continue to double first, as that was a far more common approach 20-30 years ago.

well i'm *slightly* older but i still don't understand the virtue of overcalling 1♥ on both

♠ J4
♥ AK832
♦ T532
♣ K3

and the hand in question... can you help me with that? and does your partner expect 9/10 - 17/18 when you overcall at the one level?

[whereagles]

When pard opens 1♥, we expect from 11/12 to 22/23, so I don't see wide-ranging as a too serious problem.

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Jun 21 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

In general, it is the slightly older players who continue to double first, as that was a far more common approach 20-30 years ago.

well i'm *slightly* older but i still don't understand the virtue of overcalling 1♥ on both

♠ J4
♥ AK832
♦ T532
♣ K3

and the hand in question... can you help me with that? and does your partner expect 9/10 - 17/18 when you overcall at the one level?

The problem with double then bid hearts is this is not really a one suited hand, nor is the suit really strong enough to bid this way. A strong one suited hand (what Robson/Segal call GOSH for good one suited hand) where you feel the undeniable pull to double then bid the suit to show the stregth requires some tricks.

Jdonn showed this hand.... - AKQxxx xxx KQxx and suggest some would double. Note here, 7 likely tricks, and more importanty a very good suit. This would probably just about fit the need for a GOSH double.

The strong hand in this problem jsut doesn;t come close. I would rather double and bid hearts with the jdonn hand than sfpb, much rather in fact. The hand here is:

J
AKxxx
AKTx
KJx

If you have to plahy this from your hand you could end up winning 3 tricks... if hearts are not friendly and diamond king doesn't stand up. Sure, calling this a 3 trick hand is a little contrived, but come on, if you end up in 3Hx how which of the two hands would you prefer to hold?

Robson Segal define a GOSH hand as 8 or more playing tricks if you could have overcalled at the level, and 9 or more playing tricks if you could have overcalled at the two level. Now many playing tricks in this "19 point" hand? Probably more than 3, lets say 4H, 1C, 2D.. that is 7 if things go nicely.. it just isn't up to a double then heart rebid. Lots of points yes, but a poor heart suit with no intermediates points in their long suit, and possibility of an uncofortable spade bid by partner, perhaps underpressure. No... this one isn't good enough. 1♥ it is.

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Jun 21 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2006, 10:49 AM, said:

In general, it is the slightly older players who continue to double first, as that was a far more common approach 20-30 years ago.

well i'm *slightly* older but i still don't understand the virtue of overcalling 1♥ on both

♠ J4
♥ AK832
♦ T532
♣ K3

and the hand in question... can you help me with that? and does your partner expect 9/10 - 17/18 when you overcall at the one level?

I am older enough that I began bridge by reading Goren. Indeed, he says strong hands must begin with a double. I did that for a while. I stopped. 1H can go wrong, but so can anything. However, for the extremes you suggest, consider:

If partner has hearts and some values, he will raise 1H to 2H. If I have the weak hand you provide, I pass. If I have the strong hand as posted, I bid 4H. Of course in the specific hands we are looking at, 21 points are enough for game (and that's counting the stiff Jack). Probably most systems don't get you to game on 21 hcps, nor would you want them to. I haven't found I miss so many games bidding this way.

If my hearts were better (one eyed jacks commented on this earlier) then I might bid differently. On a hand such as this, it is not so much I worry that partner might leap to 4S, but that the opponents will have bid to 2S after my double and before it gets back to me. Practically speaking, if I then bid 3H, I will be playing in hearts. Partner will not be pulling to 4C. If I wait for better hearts, then 3H will be fine opposite a stiff deuce, and if he has some values he can raise to four on that same stiff deuce. By starting with 1H with the posted hand, there is at least a chance I will learn of partner's non-support while there is still time to do something about it.

These are my reasons, such as they are, and I have found them to be practical. Those who disagree should bid differently. Goren says double, I ignore his advice and bid 1H. I certainly don't suggest you listen to me instead of Goren, but I was somewhat surprised to find myself in the majority here.

[luke warm]

i'm not saying i'm right, i've only said what i'd do... and fwiw i do find it almost unplayable for a 1H overcall to show between 9/10 and 22 or so, as whereagles suggested... i've watched most of this forum's posters play, and i've seen most of them overcall 1H or 1S with 9 hcp.. i don't see anything at all wrong with that, there are good reasons for it, usually... i can just see an advantage to having a narrower range for an overcall, that's all.. maybe i only see it in my imagination, who knows?

i guess as long as a p'ship has the understanding that an overcall can show 18+, that's fine...

[Winstonm]

The rightness or wrongness, superiority or inferiority of one method verses the other is not even a question here IMHO, for both can and do work and both can and do fail - at different times. The only issue to resolve is that you and partner play it the same.

From my understanding, I must be in disagreement with Robson Segal as with an eight-trick hand I would be more prone to overcall than double - one of the advantages of doubling with a strong hand is the ability to play the opening bid doubled. An eight-trick hand would most likely be a disappointment on defense.

Winston

[sfbp]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

The rightness or wrongness, superiority or inferiority of one method verses the other is not even a question here IMHO, for both can and do work and both can and do fail - at different times. The only issue to resolve is that you and partner play it the same.

Ironically, it would seem to make sense that if overcaller can have up to 19 then advancer might want to bid on about 3 points less than usual, which is what (quite by accident it seems, as noone can find any other justification) I did.

So your point is that there should not be absolute standards for either seat but only that one partner must allow for the possibility of the stronger (or weaker) hand.

I agree.

I'd hate to give up 7-point overcalls though.

[Winstonm]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 10:53 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2006, 08:14 PM, said:

The rightness or wrongness, superiority or inferiority of one method verses the other is not even a question here IMHO, for both can and do work and both can and do fail - at different times.  The only issue to resolve is that you and partner play it the same.

Ironically, it would seem to make sense that if overcaller can have up to 19 then advancer might want to bid on about 3 points less than usual, which is what (quite by accident it seems, as noone can find any other justification) I did.

So your point is that there should not be absolute standards for either seat but only that one partner must allow for the possibility of the stronger (or weaker) hand.

I agree.

I'd hate to give up 7-point overcalls though.

My only point is that if you and your partner agree that an overcall can have a very wide range of say 7-22, then it behooves you to keep the auction alive whenever partner overcalls and third-seat passes. If you and your partner agree that overcalls have some top end, say 7-18, then you are not required to bid without enough to warrant a game move verses partner's upper limit.

Whichever way you elect to play is not so critical as that you both play it the same and adhere to the agreements - one of the top three 7 Deadly Sins of the Dallas Aces was "Unilateral Action". Bidding outside the agreement fits that sin, IMO.

Of course, you will suffer the occassional bad result when the hand does not fit your chosen system. This is the price paid in homage to partnership.

Winston

[whereagles]

luke warm, on Jun 21 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

i can just see an advantage to having a narrower range for an overcall, that's all.. maybe i only see it in my imagination, who knows?

Well, I usually overcall with 17 and double with 20. With 18-19 I look at the hand and situation to decide what to do. I don't like overcalls to stretch out to infinity

[the hog]

sfbp, on Jun 21 2006, 10:34 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jun 21 2006, 01:35 AM, said:

Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

Hmmm - you are way behind the times Ron. Wasn't it S.J. Simon who first put in print (in the late 40's) the concept of hand evaluation not being related to high card strength, but being an elastic thing depending on things like fit.

Simon's famous example was that you should bid a GS on the strength of a 3-point hand, one honour card, the King of ♥, if I am not mistaken.

Don't you routinely raise partner after his 1♠ opener was doubled on Qxx xxxx xx xxxx? Funny, I never thought of the Hog as a timid bidder......... (well, make that Qxxx xxxx xx xxx if you are a 4-card majorite).

Cheers,

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

I don't know if I am right in saying this, but it seemed to me that you posted the hand more to justify your 2H raise rather than ask about the overcall. Anyway, yes, you are correct in your quote of Skid, (Simon). Skid was also excellent at plastic evaluation. My most recent partner actually played against him, (Yes, recent pd is old). I don't presume to teach you hand evaluation, but I suspect Skid's reasoning would be as follows:


1) You have 5 cards in the boss suit and your pd has overcalled in the second highest ranking suit, that makes it unlikely they can outbid you in S. A raise on
xx Qxx xxx Qxxxx is a better bid, though still stretching it.

2) Your hand has no ruffing values, and no redeeming values.

3) The Q of C is of unknown value. It might be a good card, it might not. The truth of the matter is you just don't know. At this stage, all you know is that it is an unsupported honour. For heaven's sakes, you don't even have the CT.
xxxxx Jxx xx QJx is a far better raise than the hand you held.

If pd has a very good hand, he will take some action, and then you can re evaluate your holding. Having said all this, I think your partner's raise to 4 was a bit pushy, but certainly not the worst bid in the auction.

Cheers
Ron

[sfbp]

The_Hog, on Jun 22 2006, 12:59 AM, said:

I don't know if I am right in saying this, but it seemed to me that you posted the hand more to justify your 2H raise rather than ask about the overcall.

I wasn't trying to justify my reasoning for bidding or I would have talked up the nice values in my hand. Seriously.

This was about the 2 issues to my mind:

a. Is it really ok to bid 1♥ on 19 (at the time I thought not but when I saw how 4♥ should make and the insistence of 2/3 here that its a 1♥ overcall... well you know the rest)

b. Is it ok to bid (both fit and non-fit bids) in 4th seat if partner is sure you cannot have more than 8 (THAT agreement we did, and do, have)? After all a non-fit bid in this seat can hardly make game opposite a std overcall, since 16+8 = 24.

Once I got over the fact that partner had failed to make 4♥ I was more concerned that bidding 1♥ on this type of hand might expose me to missing game on some good 6 and 7 counts at some later session.

I ended up invoking Skid to point out that my Qx of clubs was far from worthless. At least it was in the unbid suit. Qx of spades would have made my hand worth negative points, almost.

[chaos2k]

sfbp, on Jun 20 2006, 02:11 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 19 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

I am in the double camp as I don't want my partner's to raise my 1H overcall on:

xxxxx, Qxx, xx, Qxx.

Winston

That's just about exactly what happened.

I was the partner of the overcaller, and after the inevitable negdbl raised him to 2H. He got excited and bid 4.

Turns out the hand makes 4 double-dummy but he didn't. Sigh.

Whether or not this is evidence for *not* doubling I'm not sure.

His contention: I dont want to X because you might jump to 4 spades.

My reply; if i bid 4S on Txxxxx xx Qxx Ax, you may even make it.

Why worry about the sky falling?

why u have to raise partner with that poor hand and 5 cards spades?

[sfbp]

chaos2k, on Jun 22 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

why u have to raise partner with that poor hand and 5 cards spades?

I never thought I'd get this far into defending my action of 2♥ since everyone else seems to have roundly condemned it. Remember my purpose was to ask about the 1♥ overcall vs double. But here is what flashed through the mind of the condemned man as he sat waiting for execution:

a. with my holding in spades, opps are surely going to a minor suit or a notrump game. Thus, I force them to bid at the three level.
b. by raising hearts, I do encourage partner to lead them against 3NT which is probably a Good Thing - I wouldn't want to have to double 3N to convince him.
c. It is at least a LAWful raise (Law of Total Tricks and corollaries thereto)
d. it's conceivable partner may compete - I only hope he doesn't do so without SIX hearts
e. it's inconceivable that he could raise to game after a simple overcall, both opps bidding, and a single raise.

As you can tell, e. was wrong, and I was (initially) furious that he could have so much for his 1♥ bid. I was less furious when I discovered the 4♥ contract was cold - after all I only want to win, and there's no point in getting upset over partner's dummy play.

[chaos2k]

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

chaos2k, on Jun 22 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

why u have to raise partner with that poor hand and 5 cards spades?

I never thought I'd get this far into defending my action of 2♥ since everyone else seems to have roundly condemned it. Remember my purpose was to ask about the 1♥ overcall vs double. But here is what flashed through the mind of the condemned man as he sat waiting for execution:

a. with my holding in spades, opps are surely going to a minor suit or a notrump game. Thus, I force them to bid at the three level.
b. by raising hearts, I do encourage partner to lead them against 3NT which is probably a Good Thing - I wouldn't want to have to double 3N to convince him.
c. It is at least a LAWful raise (Law of Total Tricks and corollaries thereto)
d. it's conceivable partner may compete - I only hope he doesn't do so without SIX hearts
e. it's inconceivable that he could raise to game after a simple overcall, both opps bidding, and a single raise.

As you can tell, e. was wrong, and I was (initially) furious that he could have so much for his 1♥ bid. I was less furious when I discovered the 4♥ contract was cold - after all I only want to win, and there's no point in getting upset over partner's dummy play.

well,u dont expect parnter has 19.but he may still 16,and they have nothing, and you get too high(if parnter make game try or compete after they bid something) and heart lead may wrong after they go 3nt if partner has a good c side suit.

[han]

About the 2H raise: I once posted a similar hand here, quite a while ago. It was Fred who convinced me that raising on those hands was not right. He wrote something like: "when I raise partner I always try to have something nice for partner, an ace, a king, shortness, or good trumps". I really like this rule.

Apologies to Fred if I got his rule wrong, I'm quoting this from memory.

[sfbp]

Hannie, on Jun 23 2006, 03:31 AM, said:

About the 2H raise: I once posted a similar hand here, quite a while ago. It was Fred who convinced me that raising on those hands was not right. He wrote something like: "when I raise partner I always try to have something nice for partner, an ace, a king, shortness, or good trumps". I really like this rule.

Apologies to Fred if I got his rule wrong, I'm quoting this from memory.

Was he talking about a raise by responder, or by advancer?

[bid_em_up]

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

a. with my holding in spades, opps are surely going to a minor suit or a notrump game. Thus, I force them to bid at the three level.
b. by raising hearts, I do encourage partner to lead them against 3NT which is probably a Good Thing - I wouldn't want to have to double 3N to convince him.

I can at least see some degree of rationale to this part of your logic, even though I dont necessarily agree with it.

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

c. It is at least a LAWful raise (Law of Total Tricks and corollaries thereto).

Unfortunately, I cant see any degree of rationale with this part of the logic. It is only a LAWful raise under the assumption that your side is holding approximately 1/2 the HCP or compensating distribitution. Given that partner has done nothing more than make a simple overcall, you have absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. Just because you have an eight card fit, in and of itself, does not mean that it is a LAWful raise, instead it is a simply an AWful raise. (that gives me an idea for the changing a letter in a word thread, hehe).

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

d. it's conceivable partner may compete - I only hope he doesn't do so without SIX hearts

Again, even if he competes with 6 hearts, it will be under the expectation of you actually having your bid and competing with what he believes to be approximately 1/2 the HCP. Why encourage him to do otherwise?

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

e. it's inconceivable that he could raise to game after a simple overcall, both opps bidding, and a single raise. As you can tell, e. was wrong, and I was (initially) furious that he could have so much for his 1♥ bid.

Not as furious as I would have been over the 2♥ raise, unless partner is also aware of your tendencies to raise on this type of hand. And since I havent seen it mentioned elsewhere, if partner is aware of this tendency, I certainly hope you are alerting the 2♥ raise.

sfbp, on Jun 22 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

I was less furious when I discovered the 4♥ contract was cold - after all I only want to win, and there's no point in getting upset over partner's dummy play.

Why not? Heck even though you both misbid (imo), you still ended in a reasonable contract. If you're going to bid aggressively like this, you really should be able to back up your bidding with your declarer play, and going down in 4♥ certainly doesnt help you in your quest to win, now does it?

[inquiry]

sfbp, on Jun 23 2006, 09:45 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jun 23 2006, 03:31 AM, said:

About the 2H raise: I once posted a similar hand here, quite a while ago. It was Fred who convinced me that raising on those hands was not right. He wrote something like: "when I raise partner I always try to have something nice for partner, an ace, a king, shortness, or good trumps". I really like this rule.

Apologies to Fred if I got his rule wrong, I'm quoting this from memory.

Was he talking about a raise by responder, or by advancer?

You can read Fred's views yourself. Here is a link to the thread. He responded twice, the one with his rules is his second reply (about the sixth one in the thread).

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=65054

[han]

Thanks for looking it up Ben, I'm glad to see that I wasn't misquoting Fred by a whole lot.

You are right Stephen in that the thread dealt with a raise by responder, not advancer.

[sfbp]

bid_em_up, on Jun 23 2006, 07:51 AM, said:

Not as furious as I would have been over the 2♥ raise, unless partner is also aware of your tendencies to raise on this type of hand.  And since I havent seen it mentioned elsewhere, if partner is aware of this tendency, I certainly hope you are alerting the 2♥ raise.

So: LHO opp opens 2♣, and partner calls a natural 2♥.

You want me to alert this too, I suppose, as being very weak?